U3D1-28 - Please follow the instructions as outlined below for Collaboration in Data Gathering Methods

A

3 Looking Closely at the First Three Critical Steps in the

Framework

s people age and enter into different facets of life, they consider ways to pass property to spouses, children, and grandchildren in a legal, tax-propitious manner. This could be in a trust that allows estates to be distributed with fewer tax consequences than if that legal protection was not in place.

Establishing such a trust is a two-phase process. The first phase details who benefits, what categories of things are in the trust, when it will take effect, who the trustees are, at what point their responsibilities begin, and assorted clauses and features. The trust provides a basic structure through which its provisions are implemented. This is similar to what must be done for the hybrid framework that bridges the gap between needs assessment and asset/capacity building. More explanation must be there for its steps.

In the second phase of a trust situation the classes of assets or the fields within it must be populated. What you own is placed in the trust. What are tangible assets such as a home? Are there checking and savings accounts? What about paintings, artwork, china, cars, or other items? Are there investments, and are any of them complicated? What about businesses in which you may be involved? What debts will the trust and trustees have to resolve? How does the trust relate to other legal documents (will, living will, power of attorney, health care specifications such as “do not resuscitate”)? For the trust you have to fill its various sections and areas.

The analogy to the hybrid framework holds but not entirely. Table 2.3 in Chapter 2 has many cells that require populating but with differences from a trust. They consist of methods for the steps and where a group or community would be in the overall process of change and improvement. This is akin to the legal document but with a significant distinction. Generally, property and possessions fall nicely into categories. In needs assessments and asset/capacity-building endeavors, methods may align with one category or match separate parts of the framework depending on how it is implemented and the depth of information to be collected. One method may not solely reside in the realm of one step.

Many texts in needs assessment (Altschuld & Witkin, 2000; Watkins, West Meiers, & Visser, 2012; Witkin & Altschuld, 1995) speak to the placement of methods in the process. This is helpful, but there is slippage in practice, and methods are creatively employed across activities, so placement in the hybrid is suggestive, not prescriptive. The methods are borrowed liberally from what needs assessors and asset/capacity builders do in their specialized domains. When procedures may seem identical, questions will focus more on assets, strengths, and resources or more on needs. Be flexible when thinking about ways of collecting information.

METHODS FOR THE FIRST THREE STEPS IN NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND ASSET/CAPACITY BUILDING

Table 3.1 has the first three steps with suggested methods but not an exhaustive set of them. This provides a good overview of the framework and its implementation, but neither all procedures nor all the details of how they are done, for whole books could be devoted to such descriptions. Only a glimpse is here. Certainly other procedures could be used. Be open in methodological choice and consider ways to cheaply use or adopt techniques.

STEP 1. SCOPING THE CONTEXT—GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

When scoping a situation, whether one is internal or external, questions have to be raised about the interest and motivation for improvement: Who are the key actors? What is causing the concern? What are the issues? How long has the situation been like this? What has been done or not done so far? What is the history? What are the skills and strengths we can build on to move forward? What are the good things that could be taken advantage of to accomplish outcomes? Are there untapped assets in our community that could be used?

Table 3.1 First Three Steps in the Hybrid Framework With Possible Methods/Strategies

Usually some small group in a community or in an organization begins to think that something has to change. These thoughts might come from the administration, a grassroots group, or some combination. The company is no longer competitive and could go out of business. We are losing jobs to other locations here or abroad. Our community is having problems in relation to crime, maintenance of property, deteriorating infrastructure, services not being as plentiful or as good as we would like, and other issues. We have to act; we simply can’t stand still. The quality of work or community life isn’t what it should be. What can we do? The group perceives a future that it doesn’t like, becomes agitated about it, and meets to talk about what might happen. Exhibit 3.1 is an illustration of how this might occur.

Exhibit 3.1 The Historical Case of German Village in Columbus, Ohio

When the author was studying organic chemistry in graduate school at Ohio State, he was invited to an undergraduate assistant’s home for a Christmas dinner. What a wonderful offer, and for a starving graduate student one that was readily accepted. The family’s home was comfortable and in an area of Columbus that was originally settled by Germans (not exclusively) and had brick streets and houses of an older-1880s up to early-1900s European style. It was quaint but showing age and in the next few years would be in decline. It was 1962, and a good time was had by all.

Anyone who has visited Columbus over the last 30-plus years knows that this is German Village. It is a trendy part of the city filled with the same homes that were there in 1962, but many have been refurbished and restored while preserving their old-style demeanor. The houses now go for high prices.

There are shops and restaurants and an alive feel to the place. The narrow brick streets are still there and reflect the time when the village was coming into being. The author always takes friends from out of town to dinner in the village, and they fall in love with it.

How did this renewal (if that word is appropriate) get started? Was it a needs assessment or an asset/capacity- building effort, a mixing of the two, or something else? A small group of individuals who lived in the area had a cherished affection for it. They saw what might be the situation in the future if nothing was done (in needs assessment the discrepancy between what is and what might be).

This small, motivated group was the impetus for the revival and resurgence. It was a grassroots, bottom-up endeavor and has become immensely successful. Now when you go to Schmidt’s Sausage Haus, a popular and large eating place dating back to the 1880s, at the peak dining hours, be prepared for a serious wait.

But was it needs assessment or asset/capacity building? It would have been easy to just focus on needs and go into the negative dependency mind-set noted by Kretzmann and McKnight (1993). That was far from the reality of the group. In terms of assets, they saw wealth. The houses were unique in style, the narrow streets were distinct for the city, and the village was located close to downtown Columbus, so location, location, location was very good.

And what about those not-very-wide brick streets and what eventually would be seen as a lack of parking? From a needs perspective wouldn’t it be better to change them into modern thoroughfares? That would be in conflict with the farsighted, asset vision of the group. And, to this day, the streets remain crowded, narrow, bricked, and hard to maintain. Without them, something would be missing. Being seen as an asset was a positive factor, and if the needs basis for action had predominated, it could be quite a different scene today.

The question persists: Needs or assets—what is it?

In some fashion as the enterprise begins you have to conduct what is called friendly reconnaissance, not scouting out an enemy but learning what is going on and is there. Even though the initial premise is different, needs assessors and asset/capacity builders do comparable things—observe; informally interview; go to the web to look for reports, newspaper articles, blogs, and other reports; attend community meetings; and others. The idea is to get a sense of what community members or organizational personnel view as strengths and needs.

This overarching rubric is what Altschuld and Eastmond (2010) called micro-ethnology. A small cadre of people has to learn about the situation of interest. What is on the minds of those who live in the community or work in the organization? What do they like and dislike, and why do they have these perceptions? What do they see as the strengths and needs? How much do they care about their work or residential area? Are the streets clean, does the work space seem inviting, are houses maintained, and are there warm feelings as well as concerns? What are our thoughts about where we live and work; are we upbeat and do we see potential, or are we dispirited?

In the same vein, what has been said about our community—what are its ups and downs? What kinds of things are being noted by others? What data exist about the context, and what do they say about it? Where is the information to be found? How can we organize to get improvement going, and who will be doing this work? What has been done or proposed previously for change? Who played important roles before, and are they still active?

Another area to be probed is what cooperation or collaboration work has gone on or is currently taking place. In an asset/capacity-building study of four small neighboring communities in the United Kingdom, Balogh, Whitelaw, and Thompson (2008) perceived that only two were likely to move ahead, those with people or groups already working together. This affords a stronger base for improvement as compared to situations where such is not there. (This is a salient factor, and Donnermeyer, Plested, Edwards, Oetting, and Littlethunder [1997] and Edwards, Thurman, Plested, Oetting, and Swanson [2000] have suggested surveying a community or group in terms of its readiness to progress.)

Who directs the investigative effort? This might seem pushy, going against the inclusive stance inherent in the hybrid framework. It is important and has to be answered. In asset/capacity building and needs assessment the consultants and others like them are guiders with the focus on organizing for progress, not controlling the process. For needs assessment this view is evolving, but it is not new for asset/capacity building.

The small group that is eager for change and looking into the setting constitutes the fact finders and pulse takers, and involved external folks are facilitators lending expertise about data collection and collation, good or potential sources of existing information, and so forth. They might lead initial discussions about what we already know, what we should be learning, what questions we should ask, what should be observed, whom we should talk to, how the information and facts should be put together, and other related content. But a delicate balance must be there for community buy-in and ownership. As much as possible, the community or organizational staff should be the force behind the endeavor. Concerns from this group drive the process and how information is obtained. Group members should be a big part of data gathering for they know the context better than external persons, are like those whom they are engaging in casual conversations, have a feel for what to observe and where to probe, and have rapport. Guidance for them is useful, but it is always against the above backdrop and an understanding that the project is the community’s.

The external individuals understand methods and process skills but do not have the intimacy and sensitivity. They may also collect data and do some of the work. Are they seeing what the community members do? If not, what are they missing? What unique insights and angles might be added? Their efforts would be a somewhat independent verification of what community members find. Or they might with small group members assist in exploring reports, records, and epidemiologic sources that aid in scoping the situation. Here they could be very helpful.

Under the aegis of the group members they could organize and portray data. Putting what is being found into a meaningful format for decision making is critical and does not happen by itself. Without a coherent picture the group could lose interest and the endeavor dissipate without any visible results. In assembling what has been garnered from numerous and useful pieces of data, think about the following:

What are the assets and strengths in the community or organization?

What are the weaknesses, what individuals and groups are associated with the assets, and what individuals or groups are most affected by needs?

What has been done earlier, and how successful or unsuccessful was it?

Were there instances of groups working together to promote change?

Have outside factors come into play that impacted the community or organization, and how have they been handled?

What historical events can we build into our thinking about change and improvement?

What is the context, and is it ready for change, or are there major obstacles to be faced?

Are there other communities and organizations whose experience could help us?

What should come from all this effort is a rich collage of what scoping has revealed about the situation! It is not a road map for change, but it does lay out the landscape and its human dimensions.

STEP 1. SCOPING THE CONTEXT—WAYS IT COULD BE DONE

Numerous techniques could be used to determine the social contours of the community or organization.

1.1 Micro-ethnology and Preliminary Interviews

The micro-ethnology perspective is the eyes and ears of the individual or group (Altschuld & Eastmond, 2010). As you walk through the organization or community, note what is going on and is there. In a school, for example, what is the condition of the building, what instructional technology do teachers have access to, do students and teachers seem friendly, are you able to go around in an unescorted fashion, what is on the bulletin boards, and the like? Think of micro-ethnology as doing informal detective work (see Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Sherlock Holmes Doing Micro-ethnology

Source: iStockphoto.com/Tomacco

The same strategy would apply to an organization or a business. What does the eating area look like, is it clean, are the restrooms clean and maintained, are the staff members free to decorate their work spaces, is the place welcoming, is there an appropriate amount of human interaction, and what is the overall texture and feel? Are there noticeable disparities in different locations within the organization, and what might they be?

Extending this to a community is reasonable, but a community is considerably larger than a school or most businesses. What catches your attention when you drive or walk through the streets? What kinds of business establishments are there, and depending on the day of the week how busy are they? Are there some that should be there that perhaps are not? What is the condition of apartment buildings, homes, and other residences? Do homeowners take care of their properties? Do you see signs of deterioration or what the neighborhood might be like in 5 or 10 years?

Coupled with your observations are the people in the community willing to share with you. Identify who you are and your purpose in being there. Being a member of the community is helpful for street credibility, and a sense of trust could lead to honest insights and useful opinions. Indicate that you are working with a team that is looking at ways to improve the community—to learn what its strengths are, ideas for change, what has been tried before, what has or hasn’t worked, what might be issues, and similar questions.

State that the data will be put together by others from the area, that all comments will be kept confidential, and that individuals will not be named in any report, and encourage frank and open comments. Ideally each member in this scoping activity would talk with 5 to 10 people, and with 5 to 10 in the group there could be up to 100 casual conversations. This could be done by teams with one member asking questions and the other summarizing what is being said by interviewees. (Later on, scoping would tend to be more formal such as in structured interviews, but for now the process is informal to get a quick view of what the community is like and what residents are saying.)

For the interviews, there should be a range of respondents from younger to older residents with the older ones, if they have lived there a long time, having a better understanding of history and change over the years. The time perspective of the younger ones is much shorter. Make sure in summaries that age and length of time in the community of interviewees are recorded, since responses might be variable. (Exhibit 3.2 is an example of what can be learned from a few simple interviews.)

Exhibit 3.2 What Can Be Learned From a Few Casual Interviews

A few years after the author began teaching needs assessment, he thought that a good way for students to get into the topic was to interview people in their workplaces or university departments via a few questions, and what they found would be discussed in class the next week. The inquiries were:

Did the interviewee know of or recall any such assessments that had been done?

If so, what actually happened (methods, procedures, review of data, etc.)?

What was found, or what were the main findings?

What was done with the results? Did anything change?

The author asked the same questions of a colleague in an adjoining office. He had been at the university a long time and had seen a reorganization of the college and the relocation of their small academic unit. He had a good idea of what had gone on in the past.

What did this activity produce? It revealed the lay of the land but with disappointing results. For the small class, most students reported no needs assessments or limited efforts. A few surveys had been conducted, and that was about it. The colleague remembered one survey some time back with no changes or new directions emerging from it —not what the author wanted to hear.

But on the positive side with just a few interviews it was possible to learn about the nonexistent baseline for needs assessments. Interviews like this are easy to do and have high information value.

The interviewers should have a list of questions to guide them and a recorder for capturing the comments of those being interviewed. A form for jotting down comments or observations would be helpful. This is a casual 10-minute conversation, so many detailed questions would not be in order. The team members should have five to six key areas to probe after finding how long a person has lived in the community and related demographic information. After completion, thank the individual for offering his or her thoughts. If any interviewees would like a report across interviews, send them one. When the interview is over, the team (if two people were involved) should debrief/discuss what has taken place. What stood out, what was interesting, what kinds of things were stated, and so on? Once four or five interviews are done, were there any trends or patterns repeated? Highlight them as well as other aspects of the community or organization that have arisen.

To find interviewees, look for locations where persons gather such as shopping areas, parks, community festivals, churches, community meetings, or other gathering places. There could be sampling bias, but this is an exploratory scoping activity to get an initial feel for the community. When the findings are examined, it may be that more has to be done.

Review the interviews in a grounded theory type of way. Are there common categories of responses in regard to strengths and issues in the community and/or organization? What are historical events that have come up, and to what extent might they still be influencing current perceptions? What has been tried before, and what new ideas have been mentioned? What have the interviewers observed? They should be given some instruction in thinking about what the interviews contain and how to analyze them as they are active participants in the process.

1.2 Cultural Audits It might also be advantageous to consider what has been called the Cultural Audit (Altschuld & Eastmond,

2010). For needs assessment you would go into a company or an organization to get an overview of how it operates, what it currently does, how receptive it is to change, and so on. The procedure consists of casual yet focused conversations with main categories such as the following:

1. Organizational Assumptions 2. Practices—Formal and Informal 3. Communication Channels 4. Anomalies, Problems, and Exceptions

Table 3.2 is a summary of typical questions, and Exhibit 3.3 is an example of an application of the technique by Eastmond and his students for their university department. The content in the table has been modified to make it more suitable for the hybrid framework. The table and exhibit could be adapted for a community with suitable questions as appropriate. The audit format is also a way to organize and present findings, and the categories are utilitarian.

Table 3.2 Categories of a Cultural Audit With Areas for Probing

1. Organizational Assumptions Motivation of those involved Commitment across levels to change Expectations for change Degree of respect across segments of the organization/community Understanding of what segments do Opportunities for action across the collective whole

2. Practices—Formal and Informal How services and products are delivered How people are contacted Nature of interactions How funds are distributed and financial matters handled Shortfalls in finances Other related questions

3. Communication Channels Whether people know and understand one another Existence of a spirit of working together Hierarchical dimensions to communications Clogged communication channels or reasonableness Comfort levels in sharing Healthy climate Other related questions

4. Anomalies, Problems, and Exceptions Unrealistic expectations Cliques and groups that would make working together difficult Enough time to accomplish things Ideas are open and challengeable (not feeling intimidated) Factors working against achieving group goals Other issues

Source: Adapted from Altschuld & Eastmond (2010). Used by permission.

Exhibit 3.3 The Cultural Audit Applied to a University Department

1. Organizational Assumptions

All parties are motivated to improve. There are bright graduate students and faculty. Working together is valued, and excessive competition is not. There are high performance expectations. Respect for others is important. There is a low failure rate for students. Faculty members are able to teach well and publish. Products are the primary criteria for performance.

2. Practices—Formal and Informal Portfolio assessment is prominent. Few tests are given. Lots of hands-on connections to the real world are made. It’s fine for students to be paid for work. Interaction between faculty and students is encouraged but occurs more for students on campus and in cohort groups. Funding from outside sources affects a lot of the educational experience. Socialization into professional associations is promoted. Responsibility for finding a job after graduation is more on the students.

3. Communication Channels Students know each other particularly in the cohort as well as faculty. Generally there is less separation between faculty and students in this department than in others. Hierarchy is not too prominent. Communication occurs through organizations and electronic mailing lists. E-mail communication is generally the mode.

4. Anomalies, Problems, and Exceptions Sometimes there are unrealistic expectations for students especially if they work for more than one professor. Group projects with international students are somewhat more complicated. Not having many right answers in the field leads to unease. Socialization expectations are difficult for some students. The cohort system makes some feel uncomfortable. There is a feeling that some people “work” or game the system. Religious differences between faculty and students make sensitivity imperative. Many international students raise security issues (the audit was done a number of years after 9/11). Marriage patterns in the state mean that more local students are married at a much younger age than others in the program. Changes in program requirements cause problems. Depending on undergraduate training, the level of student technical skills is quite variable. Given job market conditions, there is some degree of angst. A kind of inbreeding occurs with few interdisciplinary students.

Source: Adapted from Altschuld & Eastmond (2010). Used by permission.

The details in the table and exhibit could be modified to fit varied situations. In a completed audit the environment is readily noticeable from a short document. This is summary power and would be useful for a discussion of the entire group involved in needs assessment or asset/capacity building. Consider the technique for gathering data as well as for portraying key findings.

1.3 Existing Data and Other Related Sources Extensive data sets and existing information can be easily located and accessed, so take advantage of

them. Remember from the first chapter that Kamis (1979) noted that a criticism of needs assessment was reliance on what was available with its hard-number social indicators. Some of the concern is still valid, but there is no reason to avoid looking into what is there especially when tied to interviews, observations, cultural audits, and so forth. Also keep in mind that resources and strengths are now entering into the picture.

If we are looking at a community, there are regional planning offices with data on employment, demographic trends, housing, educational attainment, and the like. There would be similar information about businesses—starts and failures. The department of transportation has many details on public transport and traffic patterns in an area. The reports and records of the police and court systems would help in understanding the community. Social agencies often have databases that contain much value. If there are enough members in the group, some should interact with departments and agencies for what may be there and accessible. It is not only about what they have but about whether they would be willing to help in the improvement effort. Do they have staff who could assist in data or report access for special information needs? If such support can be enlisted, it is beneficial.

What trends are in the region and the larger society? Counties or states routinely collect educational, financial, and social statistics in state departments of education, rehabilitation services, veterans’ affairs, and others. A treasure trove is there, and sometimes by asking the right questions it is amazing what can be uncovered.

Before turning to the business side of the ledger, don’t forget newspaper articles by knowledgeable reporters. They offer insights that may differ from what was just described—what communities are doing, who the movers and shakers are, what has been done in the past, what were concerns some time ago, and what is the present situation. Reporters for newspapers or on television might even be part of the interview process. Lastly, as communities, organizations, and agencies strive to improve, they might perceive that they are the first to do so. While each instance is unique, many features are not. There is writing on what others have done in their localities. What did they find, what information did they collect, where was it, what did they do, what problems were found, and how successful was the implementation of new directions?

This is benchmarking, and it is particularly pertinent when deliberations move closer to making decisions about improvement strategies. (This may seem premature as the emphasis is on scoping the situation, not on resolving it. Why is it here? Things will be observed that are for later steps in the hybrid framework and could throw off the perspective. If brought up now, they could be disruptive and derail the train, but that doesn’t mean they should be discarded, ignoring their utility. Keep track of them for later referral.)

How does this all apply to organizations not in the public sector? The processes are easily adapted to businesses and private enterprises, but sources might differ. For newspapers there might be local business dailies or, on a larger stage, The Wall Street Journal. Look at specialized agencies and groups that have data relevant to what companies do. Employment statistics are routinely issued by government entities. The Department of Labor has all kinds of data and reports and can provide employment trends and what is happening in the workforce. The Department of Housing looks at new-home construction and the sales of existing homes. The Better Business Bureau is another source.

Health organizations (local, state, and private) monitor factors related to the well-being of local and national populations. These include heart health, diabetes, obesity, and so on. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is an extensive and accessible database especially focused on children (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Health Statistics, 2013). It contains information on key variables for youths ages 5–19 as collected by means of valid sampling and measurement procedures.

Another area that could be considered is the population of senior citizens. Departments of aging at state levels and offices in cities can provide tons of data. A trip to the library for a quick search can be of great value. In 2007, for a needs assessment workshop for the California Department of Aging, the author did just

that, and what came from it was incorporated into a well-received session. He is in the relevant age group but did not know much about the issue, and without the search (a day to find and review materials) he would have been lost.

How much can be done in the preliminary scoping activity? Don’t spend inordinate amounts of resources (people, time, money, motivation) but explore enough to get a sense of what is there. The group may go back later for more depth as it deliberates and discusses what might be desirable to do. But it is wise to do this after the initial scoping is probed for insights.

1.4 Other Techniques to Consider for Use With Step 1 The techniques and methods in Table 3.1 are just illustrative of what could be done. A few comments

about other methods are useful. Lauffer’s (1982) environment mapping exercise for community development uses a one-page figure where the organization, agency, or collective is placed in the middle, and then there are sides representing clients and consumers for goods or services of the organization, who collaborators might be, where resources came from, and so on. Lines are extended from the middle to identify existing or future communication channels, the amenability to change, and other features. This is very similar to some of the concepts in asset/capacity building.

A second technique is the photovoice procedure, which was mentioned in Chapter 1 and will be covered in Chapter 4. Developing detailed lists of assets à la Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) would work, but its placement is not seen as being in the first step. A third technique that might be included is a quickly administered survey, and if you are in an organization, the use of SurveyMonkey or a related technique will be applicable. Generating instruments could consume considerable resources here, so these should be rough in nature and short. A couple of pages could easily be administered in a shopping center or a place where people congregate. The questions could be about areas of needs and assets and strengths. It might even be wise to have different versions for each. Sampling would not be random, and results might not generalize. More surveying might be desirable down the road.

The cruder survey is to get ideas about what the community and its members might be thinking. It should have an open-ended question or two to let respondents state their own ideas. There are also specialized forms that determine the readiness of a community to engage in development. This might be important where there is no prior history of such activity as compared to settings where there were long-standing traditions of working together.

In the realm of possibilities a type of focus group interview (FGI) could be employed. The concept is to have the questions firmly in mind and when the opportunity arises begin to ask them in a casual manner. The interviewees might not be aware that a focus group is being conducted, which is exactly what the author did with a group of teachers at a work session. He was at a table as they were working and saw that he could ask questions without ever formally establishing the group and the rules.

When the time was right, he said, “What are some of the things you think about when planning the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics curriculum for middle school students?” The the moment was perfect, the teachers jumped in, and he asked if they would mind if he took notes. From there he proceeded to ask other questions and had a lively discussion (FGI) without ever directly indicating he was doing so. The comments were more open and frank than what would have been obtained from a formal procedure. It just depends as to when this could be done. The upshot is to be flexible in regard to how data and information are obtained. Sometimes that will take you to methods and procedures that haven’t been thought about, but that is perfectly acceptable.

Lastly, there are neat tools arising from our ever-increasing technology. For example, in The Week in Healthcare under the heading “Technology,” Jaimy Lee (2013) observed that there is a major effort under way to enroll 1 million people with smartphones. The phones would monitor vital signs and report the same back to researchers and investigators. This would create a massive real-time database. What an exciting way to collect information with the nation as the community.

Along the lines of applications, the author’s son offered another example. He and his family are planning a special vacation and located an app of the area that contains virtually all of the major recreational opportunities it offers. They are planning to rent a car, and the program even provides GPS capabilities for getting to whichever recreational site they select. If one were cataloging resources in an asset assessment, the purchase of this app would be a very inexpensive and time-efficient way of obtaining the information.

Similarly, there are many computer-based utilities for looking at real estate and even ones that afford good maps of the location of a home and the wider area in which it is situated. (See Chapter 4 for more details about this.)

Maps are also useful for studying crime and its prevention. The author recently reviewed a manuscript for a major journal where perceptions of various types of incidents were obtained from student surveys at a large metropolitan university. The prevalence was compared to computer maps of the vicinity as to what might be done for the expanding campus. Where would it be beneficial to put in more lighting? What about pedestrian flows? How might student safety be protected at night? These are some of the needs that could be addressed by the combination of surveys and technology. Usages like those just described will definitely increase over time.

Now assume that Step 1 has been completed and the group has tapped into the critical “building blocks” of information that will be revisited when going through the eight-step process. It, with Step 2, forms the bedrock of the hybrid approach and should yield dividends.

STEP 2. DECIDING WHAT ACTIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN

This is possibly the most important step in the framework. Everything that has been collected has to be put into a picture for the decisions to be made:

• Given what has been gleaned to date, we simply don’t feel comfortable about planning any new efforts or programs and should not do anything more.

• We need to explore more and need additional information about certain topics. • We know a lot about the situation, the needs, and the assets and strengths, and we would like to

examine potential strategies for improvement. What have other communities, agencies, or organizations done that we could adopt and/or use?

• We have learned enough to plan a new program that will help the community.

The first decision could happen but isn’t likely; the second seems probable. The third and fourth ones may occur, but the second is what is expected. So how do we get to that decision, and what is the key to facilitating the group in a rich discussion of what has been generated?

Getting What Has Been Collected Into a Utilitarian Decision-Facilitating Display So far the group has interviewed a variety of people to learn about the community. Group members have

talked to many individuals and learned about strengths and assets. They have been asking about needs: What should the community be attending to, and what are the main problems? The members of the group have made observations and notes about what they have seen and learned. Existing information in records and databases has been examined, local media have been looked at, and history and facts pertinent to the situation have been reviewed. Surveys may have been conducted. All of this must be analyzed and arrayed, in a fashion that enables discussion and decision making. It has to be placed into a logical structure; if not, much good work will go for naught. Who takes the lead in this, and who is involved?

Ideally, if some initiating members have relevant skills and experience, that would be a big plus. They can be a sounding board for how the data are being treated and depicted. They can be internal detectors of subtle biases and be a form of checks and balances on those compiling the data. When this is not the case, an outside facilitator will guide the process. Handling this appropriately retains the locus of control in the community or organization and does not shift control to whomever is analyzing and portraying data. The hybrid framework demands that members of the group have to be active players as much as possible. Outsiders should be selected based on their ability to work this way so that the collaboration process is fair and inclusive of community members.

Getting a coherent sense of what is there can be daunting given the multiple sources of distinct data, an issue often seen in needs assessments. Multiple sources, multiple groups, quantitative results, and qualitative results make pulling results together a tricky proposition. Whether in needs assessment or in asset/capacity building, the concern is the same, making meaning from the many types of information that has been garnered. Altschuld and White (2010) suggested the following general rules for doing this. First, keep all

summaries short and focused. Second, treat each source independently and analyze it from that point of view. Interviews would be separate from observations as would a review of existing data. In each summary, include main findings that are supported by data as well as others that may be less well held or supported. Once all summaries are done, look for patterns or similarities across them. This strengthens findings—multiple ways of collecting data are corroborating one another. Then move to more tenuous results and conclusions. Altschuld and White proposed a format per source for reporting, Exhibit 3.4. Exhibit 3.5 is an example of one created for German Village long after the fact.

Exhibit 3.4 A Format for Reporting Findings

Summary of the Method Used

What did you do (interviews, surveys, reviews, observations)?

In general, what were the questions for which you were collecting information?

What did you do (interviews, surveys, reviews, observations)?

In general, what were the questions for which you were collecting information?

From whom did you get information?

How were the data analyzed?

What were the main findings?

Use bulleted sentences or phrases for the things found.

If ideas about assets, needs, or even solutions came from the data, place them in appropriately labeled categories.

Identify if there were contradictory findings, where there was not agreement or where there were differences of opinion or views.

Draw conclusions as to what the findings might mean for improvement efforts.

Other Comments

These might pertain to the fact the articles reviewed were somewhat dated, not enough people were surveyed, more detail and information would be desirable, and so on.

Source: Adapted from Altschuld & White (2010). Used by permission.

Exhibit 3.5 Sample of What Might Be Included in a Summary Generated for German Village After the Fact

Methods Used

A small number of random interviews were conducted in several locations in the village.

About 25 people were casually interviewed (roughly equal numbers of men and women).

Casual chats were initiated about what they thought about the area, its good points, and what needed improvement.

Other questions focused on what they thought could actually be done to improve.

Main Findings

Most people thought that the village had interesting architecture.

Some of the restaurants were a key feature of the area and were known all over.

Many observed that the area was deteriorating and neglected in the city’s thinking.

Without action being taken most perceived things would go downhill.

Several remembered renewal efforts, but they seemed to produce not much.

Contradictory Findings

The people interviewed were divided about the brick streets.

While most interviewees appreciated the community, some seemed to be overcome with ennui as to whether anything could be done to improve the area (a give-up attitude).

Other Comments

A number of interviewers expressed the idea that a broader and more probing set of interviews needed to be conducted.

Keep the summaries to several pages or less. In Exhibit 3.5, a conjectured summary is given of what might have been highlights of informal interviews. A full, more detailed account would be longer. The main findings dealt with assets, needs, and some aspects of prior efforts in the community, all important for understanding context.

If voluminous numerical information was obtained, include only key tables in the summary—don’t inundate the group with data. If four or five total sources were part of the data set, there should be between 10 and 15 pages of summary to digest and discuss. If the analysis went further to common patterns across sources, then it might be closer to 20 pages, which is a lot for a group to consider for decisions about what to do in Step 3.

Since group members participating in the hybrid framework may have been involved with one source, they might review summaries of others. Develop a compilation for all sources regarding issues and assets that pop up again and again. Each member of the group should receive the summaries with instructions to think about what might occur next a week or so before a full meeting of the total group. If a summary across summaries was done, distribute it for group review. An example is shown in Table 3.3 to illustrate how to inform deliberations. Remember the goal is to promote utilization of what has been learned.

Please note that Table 3.3 will be referred to in later chapters. It is a touchstone, an anchor, for recording progress in hybrid endeavors and for making decisions related to moving ahead. Its importance cannot be underestimated. (For other interesting summary tables, see McDavid, Huse, and Hawthorn, 2012.)

The first row in the table is where the history of an area or organization would be given. It is the backdrop in which innovation and change will occur and is necessary for focusing the look at needs, assets, and new endeavors. While the past has bearing on the future, keep it in perspective. Change is an ever-evolving part of the environment. History is important, but there have been significant events over the last 50 years.

One is that the population is not the same as it was and is evolving. More professionals who work in the downtown now live there due to proximity to government institutions in the heart of the city. A major education center has moved in as have some new large employers. These developments have been gradual over time. History sets the tone but is a moving target.

In the table, assets, strengths, and resources are in one row separated from past cooperative/collaborative efforts, but aren’t these assets? Why the separation? Many improvements in communities and organizations have been dependent on such relationships as part of their fabric. Separating them ensures that they don’t get lost in the shuffle of a lot of information. It underscores them as potential ingredients in subsequent projects and endeavors.

There is a subtle aspect to the table that could be overlooked. It captures elements in a way that invites comparison and contemplation of assets and resources, needs, and reflections on improvement. Groups should review them. The table is offered not as a prescription but to generate thought. Other columns could be added such as what other data would be useful, where they exist, how they would be obtained, in what order they should be sought, to what extent they are critical, who should be charged with learning about them, and so on. Structure the table in the best way to foster a rich discussion of the group. It is anticipated that the table will

have gaps and sketchy entries. These are fruitful for what to do next as they point toward where more understanding is needed.

GROUP MEETING, DISCUSSION, AND DECISION MAKING: COMPLETING STEP 2 AND ENTERING STEP 3

When tables and displays have been created, distribute copies of materials to group members. Approximately a week later have a meeting (it might be fairly long, so allocate sufficient time and have a comfortable space with refreshments). There should be appropriate board or wall space to show what the group is talking about or to hang worksheets for everyone to see.

The distributed materials should be accompanied by instructions that give guidance as to what might be looked for and what might be done. These might be:

1. Please review the brief summary for each source of data and be prepared to ask questions or make comments. Do the results make sense to you? Were there any findings that surprised you, and if so, what were they? Are there other questions that should have been asked, or is there other information we should be seeking?

Do you think anything is missing? How useful and valuable is the information that we have obtained?

2. Based on your review be prepared to ask questions or make comments. Does the summary table (3.3) make sense? Are there other things that should have been in the table? Does it seem to have captured what was in the summary of each method? Do we have enough information and understanding of the situation to proceed to an action plan, or do we require more? If the answer is no, what should we be doing to learn more about our assets, strengths, and needs? Do the less-filled-in parts of the table provide suitable direction for what we might do next? What are options we should be considering? Do you have any ideas as to how we can make our assets work better or more efficiently? Are there needs that seem more pressing than others? Do you know or recall anything about improvement efforts in the past? When you look at assets, needs, and improvement and enhancement strategies, does anything stand out to you as to how they might be aligned?

When group members receive the materials, stress examining them prior to getting together. Remind them that decisions reside with the group as representatives of the community or organization. The meeting will be a lively exchange of comments and views and will lead to next steps in exploring community development and enhancement.

Start the meeting with welcomes and go over each source in turn using questions as above. Take note of additions and concerns to update tables and summaries after the meeting. To the extent possible there should be relative consensus on changes, corrections, and so forth. Make sure, as they are made after the meeting, that a date is affixed to the more final document. This is an easy way for recording the work of the group. All dated documents provide an accountability/audit trail and will be helpful to groups in the future.

When the separate sources of information have been completed, move to the summary across sources (which will be longer and in more detail than what is shown in Table 3.3). This should engender a lively discussion. If the exchange moves into the juxtaposition of assets, needs, and solutions, record what is being said especially for later steps in the hybrid framework.

STEP 3. DIVIDING THE WORKING COMMITTEE INTO TWO SUBCOMMITTEES

Once the interactions slow down, project Table 3.3 on the wall with a new sixth column on the right. Title it “Next Steps” (this is Step 3). Provide the participants with a handout that shows the table with the new column. Have them jot notes on what those actions should be and go around the group in round-robin fashion getting everyone’s ideas and note with tally remarks how many had the same thought.

Now the group is in a position to think about how it might organize for Step 4 of the framework. Ordinarily what happens is that more information about needs, assets, or improvement strategies will be required. We are not ready to go further into the hybrid process without knowing more. We don’t want to jump the gun! Seek agreement for what seems to be most pressing and how more knowledge might be obtained. Assignments are made, and everything is in place for moving forward.

One other question: What about the size of the group, and is it up to its new tasks? So far a small, highly motivated one has been behind data collection, analysis, interpretation, and making decisions. Chemistry and cohesiveness are there, but more human resources may be required to get things done. A middle ground has to be reached between the ambience of the group and its ability to tackle next steps. It may be necessary to expand by several individuals who are independently minded yet would share the enthusiasm and work ethic

of initiating members. The latter would nominate those who fit and bring energy and vitality to the effort. Can new members cooperate and collaborate? Do they have specialized expertise? Have they worked with data? Have they used databases and other methods? What organizations in the setting do they connect to? Do they have time to devote? Would they be helpful? Since only a few more are needed, a group discussion should suffice for soliciting involvement, and when on board separate them across tasks with old hands providing orientation and assistance.

HIGHLIGHTS OF CHAPTER 3

1. To bring the hybrid framework to life, methods or procedures were suggested for the first three steps. They were not exhaustive but rather showed ways to accomplish steps.

2. From there, the rest of the chapter contained mostly a detailed discussion of the steps. 3. Stress was placed on Steps 1, 2, and 3 as the foundation of the hybrid framework. 4. Step 1 focuses on scoping the context, Step 2 is pulling the information gained into a logical summary

and making decisions about what the group should do next, and Step 3 is then organizing to implement decisions based on progress to date.

5. How the overall framework might get started was explored followed by a general description of what informal scoping is about and issues that might be probed.

6. From there a sampling of methods for scoping was given—micro-ethnology, cultural auditing, interviewing, use of existing data sources, and how emerging technology might be employed.

7. Step 2 examines what is collected in terms of analysis, interpretation, and further use. 8. Emphasis in Step 2 was put on how to portray the findings in a manner that facilitates decision

making. Table 3.3 was provided just for that purpose. Questions to guide the deliberations of the group were suggested.

9. The chapter ends with the group organizing (Step 3) for Step 4. Here it may be desirable to expand group membership to carry out new work and assignments.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Only a sampling of methods was provided. Do you know of others that might be applied? If so, what are they?

2. It might be informative to look at how needs assessments, asset/capacity-building efforts, or hybrid approaches start. Is there a difference between successful and unsuccessful ventures? Discuss this and, if you were to conduct research, how you would do it and what kinds of questions you would ask.

3. What is the best size group for initiating efforts like these? At the chapter’s end, enlarging the group was covered especially in relation to Step 4.

4. Emphasis is on an informal scoping of the situation as the first step. Would it be better to do this more formally at the beginning? If so, why? What are the advantages and disadvantages to starting informally or formally?